Showing posts with label turned. Show all posts
Showing posts with label turned. Show all posts

Monday, April 7, 2014

Student Was Forced to Perform Sexual Acts in Her Dorm, Harvard Turned a Blind Eye



How America"s top universities fail rape survivors.








You"ve heard this story before: A young woman is sexually assaulted on her college campus. She reports it to campus authorities. They take the accusations as a “he said, she said”. They do nothing. She goes to therapy, maybe goes on medication, maybe drops out of school. He goes on with his life. The university stays silent in the face of criticism, or perhaps pledges to take “a new look” at its sexual assault policies.


The latest depressing chapter arrived this week at Harvard, where a student penned an anonymous letter in the school newspaper detailing what she says was an assault on her and inaction by her university. The woman was in a friend"s dorm room – intoxicated, she writes – when “a friend” pressured her into sexual activity. There wasn"t physical force, she says, but there were demands and there was pain inflicted, and she was scared and drunk and trapped between him and a wall.


The woman reported the assault, but Harvard"s 20-year-old sexual assault policy is so outdated – less comprehensive than that of all the other Ivies, less inclusive even than the guidelines of the Justice Department – that the administration told her there was little they could do. Under Harvard policy, “Indecent assault and battery involves any unwanted touching or fondling of a sexual nature that is accompanied by physical force or threat of bodily injury.” The policy doesn"t address consent or intoxication in the context of indecent assault and battery, although it touches on those issues in cases of penetrative rape. Many other schools require “affirmative consent” – that is, you need to get a “yes” before you have sex with someone … rather than just the absence of a “no”.


Harvard joins too long a line of elite universities accused of inadequately meeting the needs of sexual assault survivors: YalePrincetonBrown,DartmouthUNCOccidental and many more. But what might have been easily swept under the rug 10 years ago is now, largely thanks to the internet, a major story.


Why aren"t schools like Harvard, with their vast financial and intellectual resources, with their leadership position at the very top of higher education, doing a better job? Why have the best universities in America turned from in loco parentis to incommunicado?


The usual sad suspects are all out again: Ivy League entitlement, institutional self-protection, impulsive identification with the accused rather than the accuser.


Jaclyn Friedman, a sexual assault educator from Boston who has worked with Harvard students, told me that they say young women are bussed in from Boston University and Wellesley to attend parties and social events at Final Clubs – the Harvard equivalent of fraternities.


“The attitude is, "these girls are lucky to be at this party,"” Friedman says. “That inherent power dynamic feeds right into rape culture.”


Sexual assaults like the one detailed by the brave anonymous Harvard student happen when men feel entitled to women"s bodies and when men feel as though they can commit bad acts with impunity. And that"s what is extra troubling about these Ivy League assaults: they happen at institutions where student identities are entirely grounded in a narrative of exceptionalism.


Does the “I"m special” ethos turn students into rapists? Of course not – sexual assault happens in nearly every corner of the world, and on college campuses of all types. But the Ivy League identity may help to cultivate the assumption that such extraordinariness somehow means there are fewer consequences for the chosen ones.


Studies show that men are more likely to commit acts of sexual violence in communities where sexual violence goes unpunished – a truth reflected in the way we understand assault in institutions like the military and in far-away countries like the Congo, Bosnia and India, where we use the word “impunity” to describe how weak governance and a culture of higher-ups looking the other way allows abuse to thrive.


It can be more difficult to see our own institutions of higher learning in that same context of power and abdication of responsibility – and surely there are innumerable, substantial differences, particularly between rape as a war crime and acquaintance assault. But as different in nearly every way as Harvard may be from Kosovo, the Ivy League implies a similar freedom from consequences, and inadequate sexual assault policies affirm it.


“These are "Harvard men,"” Friedman tells me. “We assume these aren"t the type of guys who would do this sort of thing.”


They do, of course, and administrators have to deal with it, uncomfortably. Colleges are not courts of law, and students are disciplined and expelled for a range of activities, including those that don"t actually break any criminal codes. Universities often prefer to deal with sexual assault charges themselves for two reasons, one well-intentioned and one significantly less so: to save students the trauma of bringing a difficult-to-win criminal case, and to save the university the embarrassment and attendant dip in enrollment that comes from a public criminal complaint. Given that so many students prefer not to report the kind of assaults that all too commonly occur on college campuses – those involving “a friend” or someone they know – a university"s willingness to handle such matters itself is, at least in theory, quite laudable.


But university administrators have to actually deal with it. Colleges are not required to uphold the standard of “innocent until proven guilty”; being on campus is a privilege, not a right, and the university doesn"t have the power to deprive students of their personal liberties. But the overwhelming majority of on-campus rapes are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. Most campus assailants commit multiple assaults. This should put administrators in risk-assessment mode. They should take every singly accusation more seriously: keeping an assailant on campus, even if he seems like a nice guy, often means more sexual assault.


Of course there has to be significant care given to ensure a student accused of any offense gets a fair defense. No serious person suggests that an accusation should immediately lead to expulsion from Harvard. There"s no perfect way to balance the competing interests here, and universities will never, sadly, be able to ensure that campuses are 100% safe for female students.


Yet there"s a lot of space between perfection and the status quo. A school spokesperson told me via email that Harvard is moving to address its sexual assault policy, and there is a new task force, which are good first steps. But the most famously elite university in America should also be instituting transparent processes for dealing with sexual assault accusations, training administrators and judicial boards on how to handle sexual assault cases, and making sure students have a clear understanding of affirmative consent to sex. “No means no” isn"t good enough anymore. Harvard should be leading the way.


“These universities, especially Harvard and the elite universities, are supposed to be creating our next generation of thinkers and ideas,” Friedman said. “We don’t need perfect answers in order to do something better. They"re Harvard. They could consider themselves on the forefront of how to use their creative energies to address this issue.”


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Student Was Forced to Perform Sexual Acts in Her Dorm, Harvard Turned a Blind Eye

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Pat Buchanan: MH370 Was A Hijacking That Turned Into Shanksville


PAT BUCHANAN: Either it’s a catastrophic event killed everyone on the plane, I think, or the pilot or someone got into the cabin and turned off those two transponders, and that suggests and act of terrorism. But every terrorist act that I can recall, whether its individual like Columbine, or a couple of people like Washington Navy Yard, they go out in a blaze of what they think is glory, it’s horrible. But why would pilots or anyone getting into the cabin hijack a plane and drive it off into the Indian Ocean where no one would find it, no one would know what they did. So my speculation, that’s what it is Steve, is that this was a Shanksville operation, this was a hijacking of the plane, and a determination, I think, what would they go for? The most spectacular thing they could go for with a plane flying out of Malaysia, if they didn’t go to Beijing and do something to the Chinese, would be to turn it around and fly it back into those towers, even bigger than the twin towers in Manhattan. Not just a mini 9/11, the Petrobas Towers are taller than the New York World Trade Center. 




RealClearPolitics Video Log



Pat Buchanan: MH370 Was A Hijacking That Turned Into Shanksville

Saturday, February 22, 2014

The Time Springsteen And McCartney Had Their Mikes Turned Off (VIDEO)

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


The Time Springsteen And McCartney Had Their Mikes Turned Off (VIDEO)

Monday, December 9, 2013

Killer Girls : Documentary on Girls Turned Killers

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Killer Girls : Documentary on Girls Turned Killers

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Texas Women Turned Away at Abortion Clinics after Court Ruling

Women seeking to terminate their pregnancies were turned away at clinics across Texas on Friday, providers said, after strict new regulations for physicians who perform abortions prompted a dozen facilities to stop offering them.

Facilities that continue to perform abortions were flooded with calls from women trying to find alternatives, clinic officials said.


“They’re calling from all over – Fort Worth, West Texas, all over Dallas, Oklahoma, everywhere,” said Betty Pettigrew, director at Routh Street Women’s Clinic in downtown Dallas, which has offered abortion services since 1978.


Offices were inundated with calls after a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a provision of a new Texas law that requires all doctors performing abortions to have an agreement with a local hospital to admit patients could go into immediate effect.


The provision was part of a sweeping anti-abortion law, passed in July by the Republican-led Texas Legislature, that also requires abortion clinics to meet heightened building standards, bans abortion after 20 weeks and requires strict adherence to federal guidelines in prescribing the so-called abortion pill.


Hours after the decision from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, managers or employees of 12 clinics from El Paso to Dallas to the Rio Grande Valley said their facilities would either drastically reduce the number of procedures, or stop providing abortions altogether.


Opponents had warned before the court decision that abortion services at nearly one-third of the state’s 32 clinics and an additional half dozen ambulatory centers that also offer the procedure could immediately halt as soon as the law went into effect because many doctors have not been able to gain admitting privileges.


“Unfortunately, we are having to close today and tomorrow, but we will be open next week seeing patients as normal,” said Tenesha Duncan, administrator at Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center in Dallas. The doctor on duty Friday and Saturday does not have admitting privileges, she said.


Anti-abortion groups who support that law questioned why some clinics had been able to meet the new requirements and not others. They said the requirement that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges was enacted to enhance safety for women.


“We have to make sure that abortions are done in a manner which is consistent with accepted safety standards,” said Joe Pojmann of the Texas Alliance for Life in Austin.


Some 45 women were denied their previously scheduled abortions at Whole Woman’s Health clinics in Fort Worth, San Antonio and McAllen, Texas, on Friday, said Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive officer and founder of Whole Woman’s Health, which operates four clinics and one ambulatory surgery center in Texas.


“They were all in tears,” Miller said. Some of Whole Woman’s clinics are open for now because they still must do required follow-up appointments for women who have already had abortions.


Two of that network’s facilities will have to shut down completely in a matter of weeks – staff let go, buildings sold – if they cannot gain admitting privileges because abortions comprise 90 percent of their services and the company cannot afford to run those offices without that revenue, Miller said.


“We specialize in abortion care because in most communities, there are plenty of family planning and ob-gyn services, and it’s really abortion care that’s underserved,” she said.


The group’s clinic in San Antonio, which is currently open five days a week, will have to reduce its hours to once or twice a month because the only physician with admitting privileges at that facility lives on the East Coast and is flown in for procedures, Miller said.


Harlingen Reproductive Services in South Texas halted abortions but remained open for other women’s health services, said Angie Tristan, clinic administrator said.


At Reproductive Services in El Paso, officials are hopeful that they can soon gain admitting privileges for its physician.


“We hope to be back up and running with abortion services next week,” administrator Gerri Laster told Reuters.


Some of the clinics that are closing or discontinuing the procedure may resume if their doctors can gain admitting privileges, clinic officials cautioned, though many hospitals are reluctant to do so for religious or business reasons.


No clinic had reported any official closings to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which tracks licensed abortion facilities, by Friday, said agency spokeswoman Carrie Williams.


© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Texas Women Turned Away at Abortion Clinics after Court Ruling

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Has tide turned against the warmongers?


Will the history books record these past couple of weeks as the point when the tide finally turned against our interventionist foreign policy?


We began September with the Obama Administration on the verge of launching Tomahawk missiles at Syria. The missiles were needed, the administration claimed, to punish the Syrian government for using poison gas on its own people. There were reports that in addition to missiles, the administration was planning airstrikes and possibly even more military action against Syria. The talks of a punishing “shot across the bow” to send a message to the Syrian government also escalated, as some discussed the need to degrade the Syrian military to help change the regime. They refused to rule out a US ground invasion of Syria.


Secretary of State John Kerry even invoked an old bogeymen that had worked so many times before. Assad was another Hitler, we were told, and failure to attack would equate to another Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement.


The administration released its evidence to back up the claim that the Syrian government was behind the gassing, and the president asked Congress to authorize him to use force against Syria. Polls showed that the American people had very little interest in getting involved in another war in the Middle East, and as the administration presented no solid evidence for its claim, public support eroded further. The media, as usual, was pushing war propaganda.


Then something incredible happened. It started in the British parliament, with a vote against participating in a US-led attack on Syria. The UK had always reliably backed the US when it came to war overseas, and the vote was a shock. Though the House and Senate leadership lined up behind the president’s decision to attack Syria, the people did not. Support among the rank and file members of the Senate and House began to evaporate, as thousands of Americans contacted their representatives to express outrage over the president’s plan. The vote looked to be lost in the House and uncertain in the Senate. Then even Senators began to feel the anger of the American people, and it looked like a devastating and historic loss for the president was coming.


The administration and its pro-war allies could not bear to lose a vote in Congress that would have likely shut the door completely on a US attack, so they called off the vote. At least for now. It would have been far better to have had the president’s request for war authorization debated and voted down in the House and Senate, but even without a no vote it is clear that a major shift has taken place. A Russian proposal to secure and dismantle the Syrian government’s chemical weapons was inspired, it seems, by John Kerry’s accidental suggestion that such a move could avert a US strike. Though the details have yet to be fully worked out, it seems the Russia plan, agreed to by the Syrian government, gives us hope that a US attack will be avoided.


The American people have spoken out against war. Many more are now asking what I have been asking for quite some time: why is it always our business when there is civil strife somewhere overseas? Why do we always have to be the ones to solve the world’s problems? It is a sea change and I am very encouraged. We have had a great victory for the cause of peace and liberty and let’s hope we can further build on it.


AGB/AGB




PRESS TV RSS News



Has tide turned against the warmongers?